Improper joinder rulings, sanctions threats don’t deter RIAA

In a recently unearthed decision, a federal judge told the RIAA that it was in …

One of the many criticisms leveled against the record labels for their legal campaign against suspected file-sharers is that they regularly lump together a group of unrelated defendants and file a single Doe lawsuit against all of them. In legal terms, that's called "improper joinder," and a case has just come to light where a federal judge in California tossed out a case against five California residents brought by the RIAA .

Sony v. Does 1-5 started like any other P2P lawsuit brought by the recording industry. In an attempt to create something akin to judicial economies of scale, the RIAA lumped together five unknown defendants in a single lawsuit. Like countless other Does, all they had in common was the same ISP and their residence in the same district (in this case, the US District Court for the Central District of California); they didn't know each other, have any knowledge of the others' actions, or share the same music.

In the vast majority of cases, the judges routinely grant the RIAA's motions to issue subpoenas and engage in pretrial discovery without the defendants' knowledge. But in this case, Judge S. James Otero ruled that the RIAA had no right to bring five people who had allegedly committed different acts of infringement in different locations and at different times into the lawsuit.

In his August 2007 order, Judge Otero noted that a plaintiff may join multiple defendants only when the claims involve the "same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences" and "address a question of law or fact common to all defendants." That wasn't happening in Sony v. Does 1-5, so Judge Otero dismissed Does 2 through 5 from the complaint

Judge Otero also ruled that the plaintiffs were improperly joined. "However, the Complaint makes no specific allegations as to how Doe 1 has violated the copyrights of the other six Plaintiffs... Therefore, the Court ORDERS PLAINTIFFS TO SHOW CAUSE why these plaintiffs should not be dismissed as improperly joined."

The judge did allow discovery to move forward in Sony v. Doe 1; that case is now known as UMG v. Ashley Williams and is pending in the same court. Indeed, an RIAA spokesperson confirmed that the organization complied with the judge's rulings to the letter. "There have been a few instances where courts have asked for a specific process, and we of course comply," the spokesperson told Ars. "In those cases, we will refile each complaint separately and move forward with the prescribed legal process given the clear and persuasive evidence we have against the individual that he/she illegally distributed unauthorized music."

The RIAA is spending millions of dollars on its legal campaign, and the cash outlay shows little sign of drying up soon. From that perspective, it's no wonder that the group tries to save money by combining as many defendants as possible into a single case. The problem is that, in doing so, the labels are not playing by the rules, according to a couple of judges. Judge Otero notes a finding by a federal court in Texas that the RIAA was lumping unrelated defendants together "in order to economize on filing fees." He continues: "Postponing the issue of joinder to a day that in all likelihood will never come only serves to aid Plaintiffs' attempt to avoid filing fees. While Plaintiffs are certainly entitled to vindicate their rights, they must play by the Federal Rules in doing so."

So far, improper joinder rulings have only been made in a minute percentage of cases, with a federal magistrate in Maine going so far as to suggest sanctions against the RIAA's legal team for the practice. Given the RIAA's tenacity in pursuing these cases, despite the lack of evidence that they are doing anything to alleviate the problems faced by the recording industry, there's little reason to believe that a massive increase in improper joinder rulings would have any real effect on the RIAA's legal strategy.